Counter attack of course. Sim retaliation was freaking annoying and made little sense too. I can see why nwc decided to implement it but it certainly alienated me, also I no longer see the reason to consider it when the first strike in H6 is nowhere near as decisive as in the past.

I, for one, am dying to find out what colour they paint Michael's toenails.- Metathron

I know the majority prefers counter attack for some reason, my guess is "because that's what things were always like". It's not that I dislike that system at all. It's fun and that's what matters.

But how can you possibly claim simultaneous retaliations make little sense? If you got into a fight, would you wait for your opponent to strike first and only then retaliate or would both of you be devising (counter) attacks simultaneously? Does a snake wait for a mongoose to maul it before trying to bite? So it actually makes perfect sense. I liked this concept and enjoyed having to plan how to be the first one to strike and cripple the opponent to a lesser or greater degree.

Having practiced aikido for some time I know well enough that it is possible to 'retaliate' simultaneously or slightly earlier than the attack comes. However that takes incredible coordination and mobility which can take a while to gain and more importantly be confident enough to use naturally under all circumstances. Now if you also consider the fact that you have to successfully dodge, quite possibly in an armour, in the chaos of battle around you.. yeah.

No, that is not realistic. You could argue that both opponents clash head on and get hit one by the other but that implies no training, any idiot can do that. That or we are dealing with a charge against raised pikes or something. Besides.. A well-trained attacker is likely to slip the attack in, even if the other defends.

All that is irrelevant anyway. My point that it is an annoying feature for me and a good number of other people remains.

I, for one, am dying to find out what colour they paint Michael's toenails.

It depends on initiative system. If we have H3 or 5 style of system where entire army strikes first (mass haste or initiative boosts) and other side gets a move when it is almost done, then for game balance simultaneous would be better. On the other hand if we have H1 or some even more genious system where attacking side changes after (almost) each action then non-simultaneous attacks are fine and i would certainly prefer that way.

However, if Speed or Initiative were to be used in micromanagement for timing over this matter, that'd be good. Perhaps it would also make some sense if you strike a foe from behind or from their side could decrease retaliation damage or rate of success.

"There’s nothing to fear but fear itself and maybe some mild to moderate jellification of bones." Cave Johnson, Portal 2.

I voted simultaneous because unless you are ambushing an opponent both sides attack at the same time. However if the one side is overwhelmingly stronger then there should be the possible result of not taking damage. For me one of the few annoyances of H-4 was the retaliating side always scored at least 1 hit point of damage.

Elvin wrote:Having practiced aikido for some time I know well enough that it is possible to 'retaliate' simultaneously or slightly earlier than the attack comes. However that takes incredible coordination and mobility which can take a while to gain and more importantly be confident enough to use naturally under all circumstances. Now if you also consider the fact that you have to successfully dodge, quite possibly in an armour, in the chaos of battle around you.. yeah.

No, that is not realistic. You could argue that both opponents clash head on and get hit one by the other but that implies no training, any idiot can do that. That or we are dealing with a charge against raised pikes or something. Besides.. A well-trained attacker is likely to slip the attack in, even if the other defends.

All that is irrelevant anyway. My point that it is an annoying feature for me and a good number of other people remains.

It's an army of goblins charging into an army of knights. 200 goblins vs 100 knights; it would make sense for the knights to attack as soon as the goblins have come up to your face.

I don't really have much of a preference, but the simultaneous retaliation was fun with the new spell/ability "first strike". It gave me a choice to be a little bit more daring with first strike units than always being somewhat defencive with counter-attack.

To be honest, I don't mind, and I adapt to whatever comes my way. So I'm voting other.

Simultaneous retaliation makes more sense, but it would disadvantage melee units even more compared to ranged, so for game balance purposes perhaps counterattack is better.

@Elvin / Metathron - not the point, right? Suppose one army charges at another army, do you expect the second army to sit there and soak up the blows before retaliating, or do you expect an immediate bloodbath?

I'm a hypocrite because I suggested that all life is sacred and should not be wasted without good reason.

@ sim ret
Yeah yeah some cases would make sense but you can't just take into account weapon length, reflexes, coordination etc for all units or how many of the defenders can pull off a successful hit when they are under attack and other stuff. So as a standard counterattack is better, especially with the H6 system that does not require it.

I, for one, am dying to find out what colour they paint Michael's toenails.

Banedon wrote:@Elvin / Metathron - not the point, right? Suppose one army charges at another army, do you expect the second army to sit there and soak up the blows before retaliating, or do you expect an immediate bloodbath?

it is a question whether you look at it at the level of individual events where two hits almost never land at the very same microsecond or average all events over entire army.
Edit. checked up an interesting fact that in epee simultaneous touch is if the thrusts of both combatants land within 0.04 second.

It is called TURN BASED with a sense, you know? Because when your turn comes it is YOUR TURN to strike. Not the opponents. And yes, when an army attacks while the other one is waiting... IT HITS. Of course, it is obvious some creatures can have the ability to attack simultaneously, or use advantages of the terrain (let's say it is snow or mud and they are well "trenched" for the enemy units do deal their high amount of damage). But doesn't simultaneously attacking also means both units hits their weapons "head to head" instead of actually doing damage to one another?

Yes, the game can develop in a way that, let's say, enemy cavalry (Sun Riders or whatever) can have lower speed on a muddie or snowy terrain, or archers range to vary in different weather (let's say it is raining or there is a mist or cloud of dust or whatever). This can always be done and it will be fun to have it,* but simultaneously attacking for all them creatures simply SCHMUCKS.

Voted counter attack, even though in original KB it was simultaneous.
Imo same time retaliation takes away tactical element. Where is difference to wait or attack if you know that you will have to sacrifice some unit anyway. Sure it opens aspect in tactics that you are required to take away retalliation charge by using summons and etc but still, I prefer attacker first thing. Sure they may add some units that have special ability like homm4 first strike or one that makes retalitation at same time, but it should not be general rule. Secondly ranged simultaneous retaliation was illogical as hell.